Alison H
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 2,781
- City
- Manchester
- Country
- United Kingdom
Definitely Charles III. If he were to recognise Bonnie Prince Charlie, that would be saying that he thought George I and George II weren't the legitimate kings - how could he possibly do that?
The de facto/de jure difference is only in the eyes of Jacobites. In the eyes of everyone else, all the rulers from 1688 onwards were the de jure monarchs, as James II/VII had been overthrown and a new line of succession established. You could get into a very long and boring argument about John Locke and social contracts and when it's OK to overthrow a monarch, but that's what happened, and the 1701 Act of Succession was passed by Parliament. You could as soon say that William should be William I because Edgar the Atheling was the de jure king and William the Conqueror only the de facto king: you could go on all day with this, with the various succession disputes over the centuries!
The de facto/de jure difference is only in the eyes of Jacobites. In the eyes of everyone else, all the rulers from 1688 onwards were the de jure monarchs, as James II/VII had been overthrown and a new line of succession established. You could get into a very long and boring argument about John Locke and social contracts and when it's OK to overthrow a monarch, but that's what happened, and the 1701 Act of Succession was passed by Parliament. You could as soon say that William should be William I because Edgar the Atheling was the de jure king and William the Conqueror only the de facto king: you could go on all day with this, with the various succession disputes over the centuries!
Last edited: